Is there a distinction regarding the number of chains that improve a weak hadith?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : Following up on the question, O Shaykh, regarding the multitude of chains, is there a specific limit to the number of chains?
The Shaykh : A limit? Do you mean a legal limit or a historical research limit?
The questioner : I mean a research limit, according to... this is according to your research on improving a hadith. Does a hadith become improved by the number of chains, for example, three?
The Shaykh : It is not valid to stipulate a specific number of chains, just as it is not valid in the case of tawatur (mass transmission). Scholars have differed greatly on the number required for tawatur, with many opinions. It is not valid to impose a specific number because the situation varies depending on the characteristics of the narrators in terms of their integrity and precision. The same applies to a weak hadith that is strengthened by multiple chains. I may see that a weak hadith rises to the level of hasan (good) by coming through only two chains, because the narrators in both chains are trustworthy, except that one of them has a weakness that does not place his hadith in the level of hasan, nor in the level of severely weak. This weakness is matched by another chain in the same first hadith, so one strengthens the other, given the observation I mentioned earlier from Ibn Taymiyyah: if these narrators are from different lands such that it is not conceivable that they conspired, or if their generations are different such that they could not have been contemporaries, then it is possible to strengthen the hadith by the combination of the two chains, because the weakness present in the memory of each of the two narrators in the two chains is a weakness that does not make the chain severely weak.
Now we move to another example. The weakness in another hadith may be more severe in each of the narrators than in the first example. In that case, one needs to be reassured of the authenticity of this hadith by a third chain, and perhaps a fourth, and so on. Therefore, it is a clear error to set a specific, rigid percentage of chains to say that with this number, in every hadith that has such chains, it rises to the level of hasan, or that it does not rise. It is not valid to say either this or that. Yes.
The questioner : Following up on the question, O Shaykh, regarding the multitude of chains, is there a specific limit to the number of chains?
The Shaykh : A limit? Do you mean a legal limit or a historical research limit?
The questioner : I mean a research limit, according to... this is according to your research on improving a hadith. Does a hadith become improved by the number of chains, for example, three?
The Shaykh : It is not valid to stipulate a specific number of chains, just as it is not valid in the case of tawatur (mass transmission). Scholars have differed greatly on the number required for tawatur, with many opinions. It is not valid to impose a specific number because the situation varies depending on the characteristics of the narrators in terms of their integrity and precision. The same applies to a weak hadith that is strengthened by multiple chains. I may see that a weak hadith rises to the level of hasan (good) by coming through only two chains, because the narrators in both chains are trustworthy, except that one of them has a weakness that does not place his hadith in the level of hasan, nor in the level of severely weak. This weakness is matched by another chain in the same first hadith, so one strengthens the other, given the observation I mentioned earlier from Ibn Taymiyyah: if these narrators are from different lands such that it is not conceivable that they conspired, or if their generations are different such that they could not have been contemporaries, then it is possible to strengthen the hadith by the combination of the two chains, because the weakness present in the memory of each of the two narrators in the two chains is a weakness that does not make the chain severely weak.
Now we move to another example. The weakness in another hadith may be more severe in each of the narrators than in the first example. In that case, one needs to be reassured of the authenticity of this hadith by a third chain, and perhaps a fourth, and so on. Therefore, it is a clear error to set a specific, rigid percentage of chains to say that with this number, in every hadith that has such chains, it rises to the level of hasan, or that it does not rise. It is not valid to say either this or that. Yes.